The Supreme Court has questioned the constitutional validity of a 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that bars pregnant Indian Police Service (IPS) probationers from undergoing training. The Court observed that a welfare measure meant to protect women cannot be used to deprive a medically fit officer of her right to continue training.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar was hearing a petition filed by 2023-batch IPS officer Urvashi Sengar of the Madhya Pradesh cadre. The petition challenges the legality of the 1993 OM, contending that it violates the constitutional principles of equality, substantive gender justice and reasonable accommodation by imposing a blanket prohibition on pregnant women probationers.
The Bench sought the Centre’s response and asked whether Sengar could be allowed to join the ongoing Phase-II training programme, which commenced in June this year.
During the hearing, the Court remarked that the policy was intended to protect women and not to deny them opportunities. It questioned the rationale behind preventing a woman officer from undergoing training if she is medically fit to do so.
The Bench also expressed reservations over the rigid nature of the policy, observing that recovery after childbirth differs from one woman to another. It indicated that a probationer who is medically fit to resume training within nine months of delivery should not automatically be disqualified under a blanket rule, and that such cases should instead be decided on the basis of an individual medical assessment.
Appearing for the Union Government, counsel opposed any relaxation of the policy, arguing that granting relief in one case could lead to similar claims from other officers. However, advocate Avinash Sharma, appearing for Sengar along with Advocate-on-Record Ashutosh Nagar, submitted that exceptions had previously been granted to at least two women IPS officers who were allowed to continue or resume training despite the 1993 OM.
The Office Memorandum, issued by the MHA on August 23, 1993, requires women IPS probationers to avoid pregnancy during their probationary training. It mandates that if an officer becomes pregnant during training, her training must be discontinued immediately. The officer can resume training only one year after childbirth, and the intervening period is treated as extraordinary leave without affecting her seniority.
Sengar’s petition argues that the decades-old policy is based on an outdated approach and does not reflect advances in medical science, modern training methods or constitutional jurisprudence on gender equality.
According to the petition, Sengar joined the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy in November 2023 for Phase-I training, which includes physically demanding activities such as horse riding, endurance exercises and the passing-out parade.
During Phase-II training in April 2025, she conceived and informed the academy. Unlike Phase-I, the second phase primarily consists of academic modules, classroom sessions, institutional attachments and programmes at the Indian Institute of Management. It also includes activities such as yoga and swimming, which can be undertaken during pregnancy subject to medical advice.
After delivering her child in September 2025, Sengar sought permission to join the next Phase-II training programme that began on June 22, 2026, stating that she was medically fit. However, the academy rejected her request by relying on the 1993 OM and informed her that she could join only with the next batch.
She subsequently approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which, by an interim order dated May 27, permitted her to participate in the Phase-II training subject to medical fitness and completion of the prescribed formalities.
Pursuant to the Tribunal’s order, the academy issued a communication on June 16 allowing her to join the training. However, the permission was withdrawn within two days. The Union Government then challenged the CAT’s interim order before the Delhi High Court.
On June 22, when the training programme was about to begin, the High Court stayed the CAT’s order, observing that the 1993 OM had been framed to safeguard the welfare of both the probationary officer and her infant child.
Before the Supreme Court, Sengar has argued that the OM makes no distinction between the physically intensive Phase-I training and the predominantly academic Phase-II training. She contends that the policy ignores contemporary training structures, phased modules, medical advancements and the constitutional requirement of providing reasonable accommodation to women employees.
The petition also points out that a similar restriction previously applied to women officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). However, the Department of Personnel and Training amended its policy in 2004, replacing the blanket prohibition with a fitness-based and individualised approach that allows women IAS probationers to complete their training depending on their medical condition.
Sengar has submitted that while the IAS policy has been modernised, the IPS continues to follow the outdated 1993 OM in its original form. She argues that there is no justification for mechanically enforcing the policy, particularly for Phase-II training, which is largely academic and choice-based rather than physically strenuous.
The petition raises a broader constitutional question before the Supreme Court: whether a woman IPS probationer can be denied training solely because of pregnancy or childbirth without any individual assessment of her medical fitness, capability or ability to participate in the programme. It contends that such a blanket exclusion is arbitrary, discriminatory and inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of equality and substantive gender justice.
The post Supreme Court issues notice to Centre over 1993 MHA Rule barring pregnant IPS probationers from training appeared first on India Legal.